ML19332B521

Staff Requirements Memo Re Notation Vote on SECY-85-272 Concerning Rept on EPA Environ Stds for High Level Radwaste Disposal.Commission Approved Proposed Ltr to EPA

ML19332B521
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/27/1985
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19332B522	List: ML19332B521 ML20151Y105 ML20151Y179 ML20151Y253
References
FOIA-86-126, FOIA-86-127, FOIA-86-131, FOIA-86-166, FOIA-86-201, FOIA-86-209, FOIA-86-263, FOIA-86-80, FOIA-86-82, FOIA-86-A-225, FOIA-86-A-226, FOIA-86-A-227, FOIA-86-A-228, FOIA-86-A-229, FOIA-86-A-230, FOIA-86-A-231, FOIA-86-A-232, FOIA-86-A-233, REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805040373
Download: ML19332B521 (7)

Text

,

..;...-.-.--.--.~-..--.-.~...-...~-

i l

.s. -

C '

• • w\\

UNITED 87ATas :

ActioniMinogue,RES/ Davis,d

.4*

~ NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys:

rcks WASM4NGTON, D.C. 30005 WM 00gl"MbE

$1o.

l Cu ngham See*

Novanter 27, 1985

'Qj',{ly"8

85. DEC -2 Pl2C5

. t.J A P+nger, NMSS Kerr SP Prichard, RES MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for perations l

-FROM:

Samuel J. Chilk, Sect g

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - N( TA I ION VOTE ON-SECY-65-272 - REPORT OM TIE' ENVIRONMENTAL L

PROTECTION AGENCY'S ENVIRONMENTAL t

STANDARDS FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

?

DISPOSAL L

On September 19, 1985, the Commission (with al2 Comunissioners I

agreeing) approved the proposed' letter to EPA, as attached.

Immediately following Commission approval, the ACRS requested that. this matter be discussed-with the Comunittee..

On October

• 21, 1985, the' Commiwsion met with the staf f,

• ACRS and. ottiers '

to discuss conflicting views.

Upon;due consideration of the concerns expressed by the ACRS t'

and'the responses;by the staff, the Commission reaffirmed releasing-the letter to EPA.

The. letter has been forwarded to the Chairman "or his signature.

1 In addition, EDO is directed to submit to the Commission the rulemaking package which conforme 10 CFR Part 60 with the EPA Standard.

The Conunission also stresses the importance for the staff to clearly articulate, in the changes to Part 60, how war interpret the EPA's Standards and that the ACRS' concerns be addressed by cleurly defining the basis for the assurance that adequate flexibility exists in the standards for their implementation.- In particular, care should be taken to avoid any ambiguity in the application of probabilistic conditions placed on the post-closure containment requirements. (RES)

(EDO Suspense 2/15/86)

L p ; N3

%M Praject p jb,W.0.b_.

4 03&tt H0.

pgq Res'd O h,E 7-pg] [

Date....U,7 M

2""-

dp6cRo3% = {1

~~

w

-g ym

#rrrm y ua.eek.a erJ w

.') S D _. _, _

4 s

1 1

't -

5

- 1 l

a;*

2 The Commission also agrees that the staff and the ACRS should -

- j interact with each other early in the process of-developing.

. the package'on 10 CFR Part 60 as well as in future reviews of -

)

5

. NRC activities under the NWPA so that valuable technical 1

- advice;and-input can be used in a timely manner by the Commission.

Chairman Palladino requested, in line with:ACRS comments, that-EDO accelerate its efforts to develop analytical methods'to be used in making a determination that a licensee-is complying

- with the' EPA Standards.

These methods should receive as broad an input and--review as possible. (t#55)

- Attachments h

As stated i

l L

cc:

Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine

-Commissioner-Bernthal.

l.

dosunissioner te~ch OGC OPE' l

ACRS i

e s

v-..

v..n-wn-,

--,-------.m-n

-w

-o,---

-u--

n

=

.')l N*,

.p

' ~ * '

[

UMTs0sTATas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i

c-3 WASHINsTON, D. C. 20005 mAlanww q

The Honorable Lee Thomas Administrator' U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency Washington,JD.C.~20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

On May 10 and 11,- 19P2 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) submitted formal: comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed environmental standards for management and-disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.

Among other things,-we stated our view that the proposed'" assurance requirements" and "procedura1Erequirements" contained in those proposed standards involved matters of implementation and thus went beyond the limits of EPA's jurisdiction.

r In-' letters-dated July 19 and August-15, 1984 Acting Chairman-Roberts ari Former Adminis.trator.Ruckelshausi respectively, agreed 1 tha-the staf fs of' EPA and NRC should attempt.to develop modifications to 10 CFR Part 60 to incorperate the principles of EPA's proposed assurance and procedural requirements.

EPA could then delete these requirements or L

make them applicable only to facilities not licensed by the NRC, eliminating any potential problems:of. jurisdictional L

overlap.

The NRC staff recently reported'to the Commission-several proposed changesito Part 60 which have been worked out by the NRC and EPA staf f (text enclosed).

Consistent with the provisions of the-Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission will1 propose-these changes for incorporation into~Part 60'now u

L tnat the finalLEPA high-level waste standards have been, L:

published.- The NRC staff anticipates submittal of.a rulemaking package,-incorporating both these wording changes and'other. conforming amendmqnts, to the Commission within 120

~ days.

The Commission appreciates the cooperation shown by the EPA staff.in working to reach this agreement.

ll Sincere'y, l

Nunzio J. Palladino

Enclosure:

Proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 60

. -., _ _ _ _ - _. ~. _.

u g

7-1 i

EPA ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND l

l PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 60 1.a.

EPA Assurance Reevirement:

(a) Active institutional controls over disposal sites should be--

t maintained for as long a period of time as 1s practicable after disposal; however, performance asses sments-that assess isolation of the wastes from

'the accessible environment shall not consider any contributions from active institutional controls for more than 100 years after d,isposal.

~(In Working Draft No. 8 " active institutional control" means':

(1)contrc' ling cccess to a' disposal site by.any means other than passive institutional controls. (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at.a-site, (3) controlling nr cleaning up releases from a site, or (4) monitoring f' *

' parameters related to disposal. system performimce.)-

b.

' Discussion:

~'

l The Commission's existing provisions (560.52) related to license termination L

will determine the length of time for which institutional controls should be

- maintained, and there is therefore no need to alter Part 60 based on the-l.

first part of this assurance requirement.

The second part of. this assurance requirement would requ1*e that " active" institutional controls be excluded from consideration (after 100 years) when the Consission assesses the: isolation characteristics of a. repository.

The Nt,0 staff understands that' remedial actions (or other active' institutional controls) would not be' relied'upon under Part 60 to compensate for s~ poor site or inadequate engineered barriers. However,'in the definition of

" unanticipated ~ events and processes," Part 60 expressly centemplates that, in assessing human intrusion scenarios, the Consission wet.1d assume that

" institutions are able to assess risk and to take remedial c-+1o_n at a level of ' social organization and technological competence equivalent.o or superior to. that which was applied in initiating the processes or events concarned" (emphasisadded)..

Therefore, it might appear at first blush that Part 60 is

-at odds with the draft EPA standards.

=-

i

'2.a.

EPA Assurance Requirement:

(b) Disposal-systems-shall be monitored after disposal to detect any substantial: and detrimental deviations from expected perfonnance. _ This l

mor,itoring shall be done with tcchniques that do not jeopardize the isolation of the wastes and shall be conducted until there are no significant concerns to be addressed by further monitoring.

b.

Discussion:

Part 60 currently. requires completion of a performance confirmation program prior. to repo!,itory closure, but does not require monitoring during the period following closure but prior to license tennination. The Connission chose not to require post-closure monitoring because of doubts about the usefulness of t

such monitoring and because of fears that monitoring in or near a repository after closure could degrade repository perfonnance.

The type of monitoring envisioned by EPA does not involve direct monitoring of the repository.itself L

- ' (which>might degrade repository performance). Rather EPA proposes? monitoring'

• L of such parameters as regional. groundwat'er flow characteristics. The NRC:

ag'rees-that such monitoring may, in some cases, provide desirable infonnation beyond:that which would be obtained in the perfonnance confirmation program which Patt 60 now requires to be continued until permanent closure.

The NRC therefore proposes -to require monitoring as &n extension of performance confirmation, as appropriate, when such monitoring can be conducted without degrading repository performance.

c.

Proposed Chances to Part 60:

Addto560.21(c) anew 1(9)asfollows:

(9) A general descriptien of the prot.am for post-pennanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository.

Renumberthecurrent1(9)through(15)accordingly.

Revise 560.51(a)(1)toread:

l (1) A detailed description of the progra for post-permanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository in accordance with 560.144.

As a minimum this description shall:

(1 identify those parameters that will be monitored; (1 ) indicate how each parameter will be used to evaluate the expected perfonnance of the repository; and (iii) discuss the lengch of time over which each parameter should be monitored to adequately confirm the expected performance of the renository.

l

w o

I 3.a.

EPA Assurance Requirement:

(c) Disposa1' sites shall be desi5nated by the most permanent markers, records, and other passive institutional controls practicable to indicate the dangers of the wastes and their location.

b.

Discussion:

No revisions to Part 60 are needed.

160.01(c)(8),60.51(a)(2),and60,121 contain equivalent provisions.

e w

I G

l 1

4 e

. ~.. -.

. 31 <,.*

?

i 5.a.

EPA Assurance Reevirement:

(e) Places where there has been mining for resources, or where there is-a reasonable expectation of exploration for scarce or easily accessible resources.or where there is a significant concentration of any material that

- is not widely available from other sources, should be avoided in selecting.

disposal, sites.

Resources to be considered.shall include minerals, petroleum or natural gas, valuable geologic formations, and ground waters that are -

either irreplaceable because there is no reasonable alternative source of drinking water available for substantial populations.or that are vital to the i

preservation of unique end sensitive ecosystems.

Such places shall not be l

used for disposal of the wastes covered by this Part unless the favorable characteristics of such places compensate for their greater, likelihood of being disturbed in the. future.

b.

Discussion:

Part 60 contains previsions equivalent t6 this: assurance requirement in.

160.122(c)(17), (18) and (19).

Part 60 does not, however, addr'ess;"a l

l significant concentration of any material 'that is not widely availrible from other sources."

It is possible that the economic value of materials could change in the future in a way which might attract future exploration or development detrimental. to The NRC proposes to add an additional potentfally l.

repository performance.

adverse condition to Part 60 related to-significant concentrations of material that:12 not widely available from other sources. As with the other potentially

r-j adverse conditions, the presence of such,a condition would require an evaluation of the effect of the condition on repository performance as specified in 560,122(a)(2)(11),butwouldnot.precludeselectionofasitefor_

repository construction.

(It should be noted that DOE's siting guidelines.

o

,I contain an identical provision in 10 CFR 960.4-2-8-1.)

c.

Proposed Chances to Part 60:

Addanew1(18)to160.122(c)asfollows:

(18) The presence of significant concentrations ef any naturally-occurring material that is not widely available from other sources.

Renumber the current 1 (18) through (21) accordingly.

em#.,-

-,w.

v,,..-...--w.-..--

... ~,. - ~ _ -,.., -. _., -, _.. ~.... - -

. t 6 4 s+9 * '

' d *%

Cys:

Dircks 7 ["

\\

UNITED STA788 Roe i

3[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Rh I

L c.

namneston. o, c. son

Stello t

WM 00CalET CONTROL o.,5, l

k....[

CENTER Minogue o

csEmanam -

December 2, 1985 Denton i

g-g 3 p3;j3 GCunningham Kerr, SP The Honorable Lee Thomas Eehrinoer, NMSS Administrator.

ED0 R/F U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

On May 10 and.~11,1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) submitted formel conunents'on the Environmental Protection m

Agency's proposed environmental standards for 'nanagement and disposal of high-level. radioactive wastes.

Among other l.

things, we stated our view that the proposed " assurance l-requirements' and " procedural requirements" contained in those l

proposed standards involved matters of implementation and thue s

went beyond the limits of EPA's jurisdiction.

l In letters dated July 19 and August 15, 1984 Acting Chairman Roberts-and Former, Administrator.Ruckelshaus,..re,spectively,

' agreed that the staffs of EPA'and NRC should-attempt'to'

' develop = modifications to 10 CFK Part 60 to incorporate the principles'of EPA's proposed assurance and procedural ~

requirements.

EPA could then delete these requirements or'-

make them applicable only to facilities not licensed by the NRC, eliminating any potential problems of jurisdictional overlap.-

,v The NRC staff recently reported to the Cosunission several proposed changes to Part 60 which have been worked out by the l-NRC and ' EPA staff (text enclosed).

Consistent with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,-the Commission will propose these changes for-incorporation into Part 60'now that the fa.nal EPA high-level waste standards have been L

e published.

The NRC staff anticipates submittal of a

'3 rulemaking package, incorporating both these wording changes L

/,.

and other conforming' amendments, to the conunission within 120 L

,, days.

L The Commission appreciates the cooperation shown by the EPA E

1,-

staff in working to reach this agreement.

l g j..

L '

sincerely, l

' ]'1 i

l l L L *y O Ca.:(..-

r L

Nunzio J.

lladino 1

d le,

WM ProjM _.._ _

l

Enclosure:

L Prooosed changes to s

Docket No.

10 CFR Part 60 PD R _..

LPD.

/H"r,ted by NM35) f

- g

, g, j

a CPf o f /

. ZWP / ' V ' WTM QR m A K hL w myn L

2 x ;.x j

1 i t-EPA ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND-

\\

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 60 1.a.

epa Assurance Reovirement:

'(a) Active: institutional-controls over disposal sites should be u maintained for as long a period of time as is practicable after disposal; however, performance assessments. that assess isolation of the wastes from l

the accessible environment shall not consider _ any contributions from active

. institutional controls for more than 100 years after disposal.

(In niorking Draft No. 8 " active institutional control" means:

(1) controlling

~4; access to a disposal site by any means other than. passive institutional controls. (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site.

pa'rametersrelated.to disposal-system performance.), or (4) monitori (3) controlling or cleaning up releases from a site

~

L,..

b.--Discussion:

' The Consnission's existing prnvisions (160.62) related to license termination will determine the length of time for which-institutional controls should be

?

maintained - and there is therefore no need to alter Part 60 based on the L

first part of this assurance requirement.

The second part of this assurance requirement would require that " active" institutional controls be excluded from consideration (after 100 years) when-the Commission assesses the isolation characteristics of a repository. The t.

staff understands that remedial actions (or other active institutional controls) would not be relied upon under Part 60 to compensate for a poor site p

.or inadequate engineered barriers. However in the definition of-

-." unanticipated-events and processes." Part 60 expressly contemplates that.

'in ' assessing human intrusion scenarios, the Commission would assume that-

" institutions are able to assess risk-and to take remedial action at a level of social organisation and technological competence equivalent to, or superior to, that which was applied in initiating the processes or events concerned" (emphasisadded)'.

Therefore, it might appear at first blush that Part 60 is at odds with the. draft EPA standards.

.-.-.. i.~

q

., f.

2-The " remedial action" is not, however, the same t.1 the two documents.

The EPA l

. standards have-in mind a planned capability to maintain a site and, if l

necessary. to take remedial action at a site in order to assure.that isolation is achieved.

The staff agrees that such a capability should not be relied upon.

The extent to wnich corrective action may be taken after an unanticipated intrusion occurs is an entirely different matter. - The Commission may wish to consider, for example, the extent to which tne app (e. cation of the limited li societal response capability assumed by the rule consistent with current petroleum industry practice)g., sealing boreholes could reduce the-likelihood of releases exceeding the values spectfied in the EPA standards.

L or could eliminate certain hypothetical scenarios such as systematic and persistent intrusions into a site.

L s

L The NRC and EPA staffs are in substantive agreement that planned remedial L

capabilities should not be relied upon for repository safety, and agree that the wording below should be proposed for public comment. The EPA staff may provide comment on this wording to help clarify the distinction between expected soc.ietal responses versus.pl.aoned capabilities for remedial actions,.

c.

proposed Chances to Part 60:

Add definitions to 160.2 as follows:

" Active institutional control" means:-(1) controlling access to a

. site by any means other than passive institutional controls. (2) performing maintenance operations or remedial actions at a site, (3) controlling or.

cleaning up releases from a site.- or (4) monitoring parameters related to L

_ geologic repository performance.

" Passive institutional control" means:.(1) pemanent markers placed at a

- site (2) public-records and archives. (3) government ownership and regulations regarding land or resource use, and (4) other methods of preserving. knowledge about the location, design, and contents of a geologic repository.

Add a new $60.114 as follows:

160.114 Institutional Controls v

Neither active nor passive institutional controls shall be deemed to assure compliance with the overall perfomance objective set out at i 60,112 for more ther,100 years after disposal.

However, the effects of institutional controls may be considered in assessing, for purposes of that section, the likelihood and consequences of processes and events affecting the geologic setting.

f

,,w-

-,---*-c,--w

,-,-..m.-

1. -,.e--ww

-me --eve-

-..,--.e-m.===i-

---,._-+-----------------a-

1. s e

=.:

i 3

2.a. ' EPA Assurance Recuirement:

(5) Disposal systems shall be monitored after disposal to. detect any substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance. This monitoring shall be done with techniques that do not jeopardize the isolation of the wastes and shall be conducted until-there are no significant concerns to be addressed by further monitoring.

b.

Discussion:

Part 60 currently requires completion'of a performance confirmation program w

prior to repository closure, but does not require monitoring ~during'the period following~ closure but prior to license termination.

The Commission chose not to require post-closure monitoring because of doubts'about the usefulness of such monitoring and because of fears that monitorin after closure could degrade repository perfomance.g in or near a repository l

- The type of monitoring envisioned by EPA does not involve direct monitoring of the repository itself.

-(which might degra,de repository perfomance).. Rather.' EPA preposes' monitoring,

i-of such parameters as regional groundwater-flow characteristics. The staff agrees that such monitoring may..in some-cases, provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in -?,he performance confimation which Part 60 now requires to be continued until pemanent closure. programThe staff therefore proposes-to require monitoring ~as an extension of performance Leonfimation, as appropriate.1when such monitoring can be conducted without degrading ~ repository perfomance.

l.

c.

Procosed Chenoes to'Part 60:-

Add to 460.21(c) a.new 1 (g) as-follows::

(g) A general description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring of the geologic repository.

Renumberthe-current 1(9)through(15)accordingly.

L Revise 560.51(a)(1) to read:

(1) A detailed description of the program for post-permanent closure monitoring of the_ geologic repository in accordance with 460.144. As a minimum..this description shall:

(1) identify those parameters that will be monitored; (ii) inoicate how each parameter will be used to evaluate the expected performance of the repository; and (iii) discuss the length of time over which each parameter should be

. monitored to adequately confirm the expected performance of the repository.

.w-

,+yy.v.-w w

,ww,w,.-

,,---,,-,wy--we m.-,

-e

--..,,-s----=,

e-s---n.

e=-m

.-,,w---.

-.---i,-.-s---*-

j j, -

J i

1 4

Add to.160.52(c) a new 1 (3) as follows:

(3) That the results available from the post-permanent closure monitoring program confirm-the expectation that the repository will comply with the performance objectives set out at 160.112 and 160.113; and Renumber the current 1 (3) as 1 (4).

i Add a'new 160.144 as follows:

160,144 Monitorine Aftar Permanent Closure A program of monitoring shall be conducted after permanent closure to monitor al repository characteristics which can reasonably be expected to provide material confirmatory infomation regarding long-tem repository performance. provided that the means for conducting such monitoring will not -

I l

degrade repository performance.

This program shall be continued until

' terminati'on of a license. -

3 Include in the Supplementary Information of the Federal Register notice

- proposing these changes the followjng paragraph:

Part 60 currently requires DOE to carry out a performance confimation program which is to continue until repository closure.

Part 60 does not now require monitoring after repository closure because of the likelihood that post-closure monitoring of the underground facility would degrade repository performance. The Consission recognizes, however, that monitoring such parameters as regional groundwater flow characteristics may,~in some cases, provide desirable information beyond that which would be obtained in the performance i:enfirmation program.. The proposed requirement for-post-permanent I:losure monitoring requires-that such monitoring be continued until termination.of a license. The Commission intends that a repository license not-be terminated until such time as the Consission is convinced that there is

- no significant additionel information to be obtained from such monitoring which would be material to a finding of reasonable assurance that long-ters repository performance would be in accordance with the established performance objectives.

l s

a,

--,,,,-m.-,-w-n,

-e.,--.

,~.--.,w.

J 4' -

5-I l

3.a.-

EPA Assurance Reevirement:-

(c) Disposal sites shall be designated by the most permanent markers, records,-and other passive institutional controls practicable to indicate.

the dangers of the wastes and their location.

b.'

Discussion:

No revisions to Part 60 are needed.

560.21(c)(8) 60.51(a)(2). and 60.121 7

contain equivalent _ provisions.

~!

2 lYA '

j '

~ -.

k k

e

+

fl 5

'q '

e u

e

- -, -c...,

r,,

-,c-,,.

4

,--r-y.,....

,---.-,..w.

e. -

~ li b

.; 4.a.

EPA' Assurance Reevirement:

. -(d) Disposal systems shall use several different types of barriers to isolate the wastes from the environment.

Both engineered and natural barriers shall be included.-

6.

Discussion:-

The staff considers that Part 60 already requires use of both-engineered and

natural barriers.

Nevertheless, in order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the provisions of $60.113(b) the staff proposes to add additional clarifying language:to 160.113.

-. c.

Procosed Chances to Part 60:

l Add a new 1 (d) to 160.113 as follows:

(d). Notwithstanding the provisions of (b) above, the geologic repo.sitory

..1

~

l.

shall incorporate a system of mul'tiple barriers, both engi.7eered and natural.

g In the Supplementary Infomation of the Federal Register notice proposing these changes include the following:

Questions might'arise regarding the types of engineered or natural materials or. structures which would be considered to constitute barriers.

The-Commission notes that 560.2 now contains the definition:

"'8arrier' means any_ material o: structure. that prevents or substantially delays movement of

water or radionuclides." Thus, the Consission considers that the new paragraph to be added to 160.113 will confirm the Comission's comitment to a multiple barrier approach as contemplated by Section 121(b)(1)(B) of the i

~ Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

L e

v4 w--

--- e v

e-v--,,--,,,.......e.

+-

i

.1 i

7 1

i 5.a.-

EPA Assurance Requirement:

(e) Places where there has been mining for resources, or where there is a reasonable expectation of exploration for scarce or easily accessible resources or where there is a significant concentration of any material that is not widely available from other sources, should be avoided in selecting-disposal sites. Resources to be onsidered shall include minerals, petroleum K

or natural gas, valuable geologic femations, and ground waters that are 1

L

- either irreplaceable because there is no reasonable alternative source of l'

- drinking. water available for substantial populations or~that are vital.to the preservation of unique and sensitive ecosystems. Such places shall not be used for disposal of the wastes covered.by this Part unless the favorable i

- characteristics of such places compensate for their greater likelihood of being disturbed in the future.

b.

Discussion:

Part 60 contains provisions equivalent to, this assurance requirement in' E

Pa't'60 coes not, however. address "a

. - 1660.122(c)(17).-(18),and-(1g).

r significant concentration of any material that is not widely available from

?

other sources."

It:1s possible that the economic va'lue of materials c:uld change in the future in a way which might attract future exploration or development detrimental to-E repository performance. The staff proposes to add an additional potentially adverse condition to Part 60 related to significant concentrations of material that is not widely available from other sources. As with the other potentially

- adverse conditions, the presence of such a condition would require an evaluation of the effect of the condition on repository perfomance as specified in 160.122(a)(2)(11). but would not preclude selection of a'. site for repository construction.

(It should be noted that DOE's siting guidelines contain an identical provision in 10 CFR 960.4-2-8-1.)

c.

Proposed Channes to Part 60:

Addanew1(18)to160.122(c)asfollows:

(18)Thepresenceofsignificantconcentr.2tionsofany naturally-occurring material that is not widely available from other sources.

Renumber the current 1 (18) through (21) accordingly.

ww--

v--

.,v-,,

,--*,.-,.,,*y,,,.,,,,e,,-.-,w.

.,,-,,g...%y.

,,s..

. ~.

j L

a 8-L L

6.a.-

EPA Assurance Reevirement:-

(f) Disposal systems shall be selected so that removal of most of the wastes is not precluded for; a reasonable period of time after disposal.

ib. M:

EPA's concept of'"rewaval* is significantly difforent from " retrieval" in

- Part 60.

EPA wants140 preclude disposal concepts such as deep well injection for-which it would.be virtually _ impossible to remove or recover wastes.

regardless:of the timeTand resources employed.

For a mined geologic repository wastes could be located and recovered, albeit at great cost, even

.after. repository closure; EPA therefore considers-that a repository complies Lwith this absurance. requirement, and no revision to.Part 60 is needed.

e i

4 1

(4 '

4 e

1 9 w-g--s+-wea-e---cene-

, e er v-yon-rues-*-

e-*

-me-1-p

=w wwsw,.--

=+-----wwrs

-e-r,--es-n-,-+e-

--e

+-

m we

~

4-

,u b,

m.

t

y. f +

DEC 2 3 m

{

o PEMORANDUM FOR:

R. F. Fraley

(

Executive Director

[

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards FROM:

William J. Dircks i

Executive Director for Operations l

StmJECT:

RESPONSE TO ACPS COMMENTS O'? EPA HLW STANDARDS (FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM 306th and 307tt, ACRS MEETINGS) i 1

In-letters dated October.16 and November 14, 1985, David A. Ward ttansmitted to I

v Cha'T:an Palladino the comments of the ACRS regarding the high-level radicactive waste standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency i

(EPA) on September 19, 1985.

As the NPC staff understands, these coments can be summarized as follows*

1..

In comparison with other risks, the standards are unduly restrictive.

j P

2.

Because the standards are so restrictive, and because of the probabilistic nature of the. standards, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the NRC to detemine compliance with the standards in a licensing review

-for an actual rapository.

3.

The standards contair, internal inconsistencies (e.g., the dose limits t

during repository operations are sliohtly different for licensed and unlicersed repositories) and the standards de not incorporate the latest i

ICRP recomendations r9gardino doses to individual organs.

l Recarding the first item above, the ACRS has stated that the level of risk aliowed by the EPA HLW standards is much lower than that allowed by other I

r stendards for radiologi:al and non-radiological hazards.

However, the staff has found that under certain reasonable scenarins and assumptions (e.g., the size of the poulation at risk) the EPA standards can be shown

-to be comparable to other standards now in place for other nuclear activities, as we discussed in our presentation to the ACRS on November 8, 1985.

Since the. risks allowed by the EPA standards can be viewed in such widely differert j

ways, the staff has concentrated on the achievability of the standards rather than on comparisons with the risks allowed by other standards.

l The ACRS is concerned that the low level of allowable risk, combined with the probabilistic nature of the standards, will make the standards difficult to implement in an actual repository licensing review. Previous NRC contractor 1

ji

% 4 1

//O J.."/0 sq

^

A

2-i studies (documented in NUREG/CR-3235) demonstrated (1) that analytical techniques exist, or are under development, to evaluate potential releases from a geologic repository, and (2) that repository sites can likely be fou'id for which repository performance can be demonstrated to be in compliance with the CPA HLk standards. The NR. staff will further develop its views regarding its ability to implement the EPA standards in the rulemaking package currently i

being prepared to incorporate the EPA standards into Part 60.

Regarding inconsistency within the standards, the NRC staff recognizes that EPA has, for pragmatic reasons, chosen to maintain consistency with other existing EPA standards including the uranium fuel cycle and drinking water standards.

This has resulted in internal inconsistencies within the EPA HLW standeds which, while not desirable, do r.ot appear to endanger public health and safety i

nor to pose inordinate costs or difficulties for implementatiori of the standards by the NRC.

In the NRC staff's view, a general overhaul of EPA's radiation protection standards would be needed to adopt the revised ICRP recomendations and to promote consistency between (and within) standards. The l

NRC staff would support such an initiative by the EPA.

l The ACRS also recomended:

(1) acceleration of NRC staff efforts to develop analytical methods for evaluating repository perfcrmance and (2) that a consensus be sought, possibly through rulemakings, on these methods as they are developed. With resrtet to the first recommendation, we note that, in a meeting on October 24, 1985, we briefed the ACRS Subcomittee on Waste c

Management on our HLW program plan and described how we have allocated i

resources to each m,jor program element.

As we described in this briefing.

l a major program element is development of licensing assessment methodologies; we believe this represents an aggressive effort.

We will continue to seek ways to accelerate licensirs assessment methodology development and still f

meet other requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and Comission priorities. As stated in our October program briefing, we look forward to 1

receiving Subcomittee coment on our program strategies and specific feedback on.the tradeoffs we have made among program elements in allocating resources and setting schedules. With respect to the second recomendation, the staff agrees that rulemaking may prove to be an appropriate means of developing consensus regarding certain aspects of the staff's analytical methods. We note that the staff has an on-going effort to identify Ifcensing i

F

~ -. - -

,,.w_.,n_

,_.,.,e

...n.,-

.w,

,-----,w-

I 4

406.3.3/DF/85/12/03 3

issces and to seek early resolution through such means as public review and comment on technical positions developed by the staff. We will continue to pursue early resolution of licensing issues using technical positions and, as appropriate, rulemakings.

As suggested by the staff requirements memorandum for SECY-85 277, the staff would appreciate an opnortunity to discuss the staff's proposed conforming amendments relating to proposed implementation procedures with the ACRS in the near future.

M W. b William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations EDO WJDircks

• See previous concurrence 12/ /85 FC

WMRP

WMRP

WHRP

DWM

DWM

NMS$

NMSS

....:..........--:........---.:...--.......:--..........:------......:..-----...:.-.. L......

AME :DFehringer* :RBoyle*

HJMiller*

MJBell*

RBrowning*

DMausshardt* :JG0Ms

....:............:.........--:-.--......--:............:..---.....--:........---.:.--)-..----

~

c j

Bernero for Appropriste Action

~

(EDOSignature)

.. = y['.

\\

UNITED STATES cys: Stello i

f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Taylor

+

g Aovisony comunTes ow wuctsAn wAsrs r

i yThpson wAswiworow, o.c. anus Murley, NRRi Beckjord, RIl Jordan, AE0!!

May 3, 1989 Scinto 0GC!

CentralFi1{

The' Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

?

b

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED WASTE CONFIDENCE DECISION BY THE WASTE CONFIDENCE l

REVIEW GROUP l

During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Connittee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC Staff to discuss the preliminary draft of the proposed Waste Confidence Decision (see refer-ence) by the Waste Confidence Review Group.

Tnis matter was also a subject of discussion during a meeting held on April 19, 1989 by an ACNW Working Group.

On August 31, 1984, the NRC issued a final decision on what has come to be known as its " Waste Confidence Proceeding." The current review is an l.

update of that assessment, and a significant feature in this latest l

review is the incorporation of the changes brought about by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of December 1987.

L On the basis of our discussions on this matter, we offer the following L

comments:

L

~

1.

We believe the present report appears to be technically sound, and in this assessment, we endorse both the expanded application of the generic ap> roach to the majority of nuclear power plants and the L

incorporat'on into the proceedings of a more realistic timetable l

for the availability of a licensed repository and an extended time interval for.the storage of spent fuel.

l.

~

?

l 2.

We continue to have concerns about the ability of the NRC staff to L

confirm that the repository complies with the probabilistic stan-dards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The explanations given in the poposed Waste Confidence Decision on how this is to be accomplished do not illuminate the process nor do they provide convincing arguments that it can be accomplished.

l s

N n x) A s ilytyp D l (/ul I & U f I

. _. ~.

j L *'

- +

h

?

l

. May 3, 1989 l

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

1 The report also needs organizational and editorial changes to enhance.

the ease with which it can be read and assimilated.

I Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman

~

Reference:

r Memorandum dated April-17, 1989 from Robert M.

Bernero, Director, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Dade Moeller, Cha-irman, ACNW, transmitting Preliminary Draft of Waste Confidence Review Group Proposed WasteConfidenceDecision(PREDECISIDNAL) f e

t e

e O

b a

r

~.m m.

, _.. - _.. ~

UNITED STA NUCLEAR REOULATdRY SMMISSION J

ADVl80nv CetMNTTlt eN WuCLEAn WAstt wAswmotom. e c. mas 1

July 3, leap The Nonerable Kenneth M. Carr Chaireen U.S. Rutlear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20665 l

Dear Chairman'Carr:

SUNECT: Atlef REVIEW 0F NRC C0fetENTS ON 00E $lTE CNaRACTERilATION PLAN l

During its twelfth meetint, June 28-30, Iget the Advisory Comeittee en Analysis (SCA)(ACIRI) completed its review el the Site C Nuclear Weste being prepared by the llRC staff en the lite Charac.

terianten Plan (SCP) developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (00E) l for the proposed high-level waste (Ig,W) repost tory at Yucca Mountain.

During this meeting, the Committee had the benefit of discussions with l

staff moders from the NRC and 00E. This metter was aise a subject for 7

discussion during the sixth through eleventh meetings of the ACIRf as i

well as during an ACllW Working Group meeting en April 1g. Igtg. During the seventh meeting February 21-23, igeg, we had discussions and interactions with representatives free the State of Nevade's fluclear Weste Project Office.

The Comittee aise had the benefit of the docu.

l l

monts referenced.

i l

.in approaching this task, the Comittee assioned the responsibility for reviewing specific subject categories in the SCA to tedividual ACIRI consultants.

These censultants set with aseers of the ERC. staff for in-depth discussions and then served as leaders for reviews of' the i

assigned subject categories during the eleventh and twelfth meetings of

~

the Cemeittee.

Throughout our reviews, we have interacted with the NRC staff en a continuing basis, and many of our cements are the cuisine.

i tien ~Ithis iterative process.

we have reached certain eenclustens and went As a result of eer review, dations concerning the SCP and/or the SCA..

to effer specific recommen Our more signif Econt coeuents deal with:

the absence in the SCP of statements addressing the systematic and early identification and evaluation of potentially dis-i qualifying features at the Yucca Neuntain Sites the apparent lack of sufficient attention to the 11attations and uncertainties in the Yucca Heuntain data bases, and the t

associated difficulties in demonstrating that the repository will comp (ly with the Environmental -Protection Agency standard Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Trsnsuranic Radioactive Wastes'): and

[/v$$ c,g Q

pwrn __w_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _

aum o

i The Menorable Kenneth H. Carr July 3, Iggy l

1 Delays by DOE in implementing satisfactory quality assurance r

l (4A) progress.

~

Our specific comments follow:

1.

Altheogh the SCp is an action plan for site characterisation, we believe that 4 auch stronger focus should be placed on arty detection of potentially disqualifying features.

The SCA is not sufficiently emphatic in its critique of the lect of such a feces We belititve that the SCA shes14 point out the need in the SCp for en i

integrated section et the plan that explicit *y addresses the activ-ities leading to en eva'uation of characteristics of the site I

directly related -te disqualifying features (e.g., groundwater traveltime)asstatedintheregulattens.

f.

Uncertainties and liettettoas in the data utw to justify con.

clustens will be the center of aest contentient. Since the ability

'I to resolve these uncertainties experteentally any well be beyond the practicality of the progree, planning for their management is required. We recessend that the IRC staff strengthen its treatment of this topic.in the SCA.

i As was briefly discussed with the Commission during our meeting en "

130s we believe that the INIC staff should oncevrege DOE i

April 27 to developas,co assessment (ptA) ping Level 2 (Release Estieste) probabilistic for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.

Such a PRA should be useful in defining these parameters that are l

critical to the adequate performance of the proposed facility, and i

L would help to set priorities for the accompaging investigations.

-l Subsequent to our discussions with the Commission, we were pleased

^

to learn that SOE plans to begin conducting in 1990 or 1931 probe.

bilistic system performance assetaments for the -proposed repost-i tory. We recommend that the NRC allocate resources sufficient to i

develop the espertise necessary ta conduct an adequate, independent evaluation of the 111stic system perferesace assessments that i

v111 he submitted DOE as part of its application for a coactres-tien perett for proposed repository.

The Cosmittee was told by the NRC staff (and this view was ep.

l perted by one of our consultants) that the DOE staff any hac considerable difficulties in jenerating a cugilementary cumulative if this is the case, distribution function (CCDF) ter the site and, ired compliance with they may not be able to demonstrate the requ ths EPA standard.

This difficulty in demonstrating compliance could represent a disqualifying feature for the proposed repository i

location. We urge that this coecern be addressed in the SCA.

He believe that the NRC staff has been extremely tolerant of the 3.

delays by 00E in establishing a satisfactory QA process by the Office of Civilian Radteactive Waste Management (0CRtf) for l

The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr July 3,198g

]

4 i

the Yucca Mountain project.

Although one of the Objections in the i

SCA being prepared. by the NRC staff addresses this estter we believe that this troublesome issue should be prosytly reso,lved since continued absence of approvable QA systems will increase the i

burden en the participants in licensing processes when qualifica-tion of data is at issue.

l i

4.

Additional coments on selected topics include:

i Because the Calice Mills forestion is intended to serve as a s.

barrier between the radioactive weste and the underlying i

saturated rene, some form of compromise must be reached l

between maintaining this forettion as a barrier and-drilling into or. exploring within it to determine its critical charac-teristics.

The RRC staff should include.in the SCA a receso i

eendation that 00E be definitive on how they will obtain the data necessary to determine the characteristics,of the Calice N111s forestion.

l l

I b.

gecause of the significance of the weste packsge in the containment of the associated radionuclides. it is important that decisions be onde soon on the esterials to be used in fabricating the weste packages and the menner in which they "'

are to be sealed.

Such inforestion is essential in consider.

i I.

ing possible interactions between the packages and the repos-itory esterials with which they will be in contact.

Constd.

erotion of these interactions will require detereiwtion of the specific chemical composition of the repository water, and the SCA should reflect this concern.

One of the key parameters in determining the adequacy of the c.

proposed site is the rate of groundwater. flow.

In this regard, the NRC staff should esphasize in the SCA the need to

-l ebtain information on whether estrix or fracture flew (or a i

'i combinetten of the tus) will govern water sevement.

Current eencerns with the locatten of the taplerstery Shaft d.

Facility (ESF) pertain to its-distance free faults and the espropriateness of the samples it will yield in iding data that are representative of the proposed repost location.

We believe the SCA should emphasize the need for applica-i tien of a comprehensive range of techniques (e.g.

subsurface espping, geophysical surveys) to the study of thls,probles.

l In the development of the Titic I design for the ESF, the DOE i

staff was supposed to have provided a conceptual approach for construction of the facility.

Reviews by the NRC staff (and The L

ACibi consultants) indicate that this was not the case.

staff should ensure that the SCA states that before 001 proceeds further with the Title !! design, which will provide L..

a

r w,

'i'

'l o

The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr July 3, 1939 l

I.

additional details on the proposed ESF, 00E shoule promptly i

address the errors and deficiencies in the Title ! design.

(

e.

We believe that consideration should be given to extending the i

1 geoscience (Itydrology, geology, geophysfes) investigations to a distance sufficient to provide data en eenditions within the-region surrounding the site. Some of the entsting investiga-tions appear to be too limited in their geographical coverage.

1 For example, because of the importance of the potential of-i volcanism, such an entensten would. appear mandatory to ensure that these studies have the potential for uncovering any disqualifying features.

f.

A >ange of alternative conceptual models will be used in j

conducting perfomsace assessments for the reesitory.

In our opinion there are two probicos associated w' th these models, namely,,they are incomplete and they are not integrated. The SCp should be constructed se as to provide data that identi-fies the correct model, rather than merely confi ming the pre-3 ferred modei.

Since modeling is essential in detemining the periornance of the pmposes repository and for uncovering these deficiencies must be potential disqualifying features,hould be scheduled as early '

L corrected.

Such deteminations s I

as. possible in the site characteriaation process, and this should k reflected in the SCA.

e The potential for natural resources is the area and the i

p.

scenaries that are to be considered reistive to possible human intrusten some of which are related to emploration for such resources)(.need to be given more-atientien.A sach more thorough assessment of potential eineral resources, including petroleus, should be required in the SCp and the SCA should j

indicate this need.

the Ceemittee notes that With respect to human intrusion'ded in epa standard 40 CFR guidance en this setter is provi part 131.

We support the. NRC staff recessendation that the DOE staff should consider this guidance in the development of the CCOF for the site.

1 t

h.

The NRC staff has apparently accepted the lack of details in the SCp on test procedures and schedules for various site 4

analyses since these are to be provided in the Stub plans-being pared by 00E.

This places an increased burden for review the Stu b plans on the NRC staff. We recomend that the NRC taff note this probles in the SCA and that enhanced details of the character 14ation program be included in the L

periodic progress reports that will be submitted by 00E to L

supplement the SCp.

+

E

n The Honorable tenneth % Carr July 3, gggg j

i I

S.

The SCA methodelegy and its basis are sharply focused on the indi.

l widus) sections of the SCP.

Revertheless, it might be useful if the RRC staff would produce en addendum that, among other items, i

contains those comments related to global or generic matters.

For i

enasple, we believe that a useful teament ta such a section would l

be te urge ODE to recognise that the licensing process and any l

decisional activities eennected with it are adversarial. We aise l

believe that this characteristic of the.11eenstag proceedings i

.should encouropa DOE to ensure that its technical arguments are as such beyond da11enge by responsible scientists as reasonable.

The centent of the SCA should be responsive to this need.

L We trust these comments willibe helpful in the devolesment of the Site la closias we want to actaewledge and thank l

characterization Analysis.

staff sesbers of both the ARC and 00C,for their cesperetten and su et L

we during our review.

All the people with when es have interacted been helpfu) and responsive to our questions.-

l f

Sincerely.

es wfA, Dade W. Nee 11er i

~

Chairman

References:

3.

v. c. -Department of Ene 00E/W-0199, ' Site Characterisation

- Plan - Yucca Neustate Site, Decaster 1908 U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory teamission draft Site Characterisation l

2.

Sections 1, t, and S received June if,190s (Prede-y 00E/W-Ot06, ' Site Characterisation U. 5. Department of Energy, Mountab. Revade,' January 1989 3.

Plan - Public Maneest Yucca l

00E l

U. S. Departwent of EnergyIte,'/RW-1M, ' Site Characterisatio 4.

Overvi Yucca Mountata S Decader 1908 i

U. S.

leer Regulatory Ceanission

'Ahteistrative Man end S.

' Procedures for AC Staff Review of 30k's Censultation treft Site l

Characterisaties Plas ' Seces6er 18,1987 latory Commission

'Dreft Techsteal Review Plaa n

' 6.

5. S. Butlaar for MC Staff ieu of 90t's Site dhar.'cterisation Plans,' Decem-ber it. 1987

' Review Plan for ARC Staff i

W. S. Rutlear Replatory Commission,Plaa

• Geces6er 7.

1908 Revisu of DOE's Site Character 1*ation W. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cousission Repufatory Guide 4.1 8.

dard Forset and Centent of Site snaracterisaties Pleas for Nigh4evel Waste See it sitories

• W 1987 ce impared for Sandia Re-p.

Ross S.

Disposal 85-71W. rated'A best Survey of Disruptica tional Laboratortes Scenaries for a N h4evel-Weste Repository at Yucca Neuntata, Nevads,' December 1 7 m

sw w y

i The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr July 5, 1989 1989 free John J. Kearney, Edison Electric tetter dated June 1, Gerts. Yucca Mountain Project Office. 00E, i

Institute, to C. P.

regarding 00E Site Characterization Plan 11.

Letter dated May 3, litt free P. Locx, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Waste Project Affairs, to C. Gerta ODE Yucca Mountain Projects Project hffice,

Subject:

State of Nevada PMisinary Cauments en l

the Site Charetterization Plan for the Yucca Mountain Candidate High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositary Site l

i t

l l

O f

f l

i i

b i

I t

t

}

[

s 2

i l

t 5

k e-

--4.--

-.. - + -..

==-..---

m m--

..w

-